This case is before the Authority on a negotiability appeal filed by
the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (the Statute), and concerns the negotiability of two
proposals.(1) The Agency filed a response to the
Union's request, and the Union filed a reply to the Agency's
response.

For the reasons that follow, we find the proposals are
not within the duty to bargain.

II. Background

Pursuant to a reorganization plan, the Agency proposed moving its
Madras and Area IA offices approximately 40 and 30 miles, respectively,
from their current locations. In response, the Union proposed the
following:

Proposal 1

The Agency shall not move the current Madras local office from its
present location.

Proposal 2

The Agency shall not move the current Area Office 1A from the
downtown Portland area. If the Agency chooses to relocate this office to
another location within downtown Portland, the Union will be allowed to bargain
over the impact and implementation of its move.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. Union's Position

The Union contends that the proposals concern the methods and means of
performing work, within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.
According to the Union, the Agency's relocation decisions involve only "where
the work will be performed" because other matters, including customer areas to
be served, customers, and work processes, would remain the same before and
after relocation. Response at 1.

The Union references unspecified Authority case law holding that
"choice of workspaces is a negotiable matter unless the agency alleged that it
has a functional reason, such as supervision, for grouping employees together."
Id. The Union contends that, if management alleges such a functional
reason, "then the decision involve[s] the means of performing work and [i]s
bargainable at the election of the Agency under [section] 7106(b)(1)."
Id. The Union contends that the Authority should determine that,
"although the Agency has never revealed a functional rationale for the move of
the two offices, the move of these offices involves the means, methods and
technology [of performing the Agency's work]" Id.

B. Agency's Position

The Agency contends that the Union's proposals are outside the duty to
bargain because they infringe on management's right to determine its
organization within the meaning of section 7106(a) of the Statute. Citing
National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 83 and Department of the
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 35 FLRA 398 (1990) (IRS), the
Agency asserts that the right to determine organization includes the right to
determine the geographic locations in which an agency conducts its operations.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

In National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-184 and
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky,
51 FLRA 386, 393 (1995) (VAMC, Lexington), the Authority set forth the
approach it applies in a negotiability dispute where parties disagree whether a
proposal comes within the terms of section 7106(a) or section 7106(b)(1) of the
Statute. National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-109 and
Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Newington, Connecticut, 53
FLRA 403, 408 (1997) (VAMC, Newington). Under this approach, the
Authority first examines the contention that a proposal is electively
bargainable under section 7106(b)(1). Id. If the proposal concerns a
subject set forth in section 7106(b)(1), the Authority does not address
contentions that the proposal also affects the exercise of management's
authority under section 7106(a). National Association of Government
Employees, Local R1-109 and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical
Center, Newington, Connecticut, 53 FLRA 526, 531 (1997). If, however, the
proposal is not encompassed by section 7106(b)(1), the Authority proceeds to
analyze it under the appropriate subsection of 7106(a).(2)

1. The proposals do not concern the methods and means of performing
work under section 7106(b)(1).

There are two prongs to the Authority's current test used to determine
whether a proposal concerns the methods and means of performing work. First,
the proposal must concern a "method" or "means" as defined by the Authority. In
this regard, the Authority construes "method" to refer to "the way in which an
agency performs its work." International Federation of Professional
and Technical Engineers, Local 49 and U.S. Department of the Army, Army Corps
of Engineers, South Pacific Division, San Francisco, California, 52 FLRA
813, 818 (1996) (emphasis added). The term "means" refers to "any
instrumentality, including an agent, tool, device, measure, plan, or policy
used by an agency for the accomplishment or furtherance of the performance of
its work." Id. Second, it must be shown that (1) there is a direct and
integral relationship between the particular methods or means the agency has
chosen and the accomplishment of the agency's mission; and (2) the proposal
would directly interfere with the mission-related purpose for which the method
or means was adopted. See, e.g., Association of Civilian
Technicians, Arizona Army Chapter 61 and U.S. Department of Defense, National
Guard Bureau, Arizona National Guard, 48 FLRA 412, 420 (1993).

The Union specifically asserts that, as a result of the Agency's
decision to relocate the two offices: (1) the customer area to be served would
remain "exactly the same"; (2) the "customers would be the same"; (3) the
"loans would be the same"; and (4) the "paperwork processing would be the
same[.]" Response at 1. Given these Union assertions, there is no basis on
which to conclude that the proposals concern methods and means by which the
Agency performs its work, based on the Authority's current definitions
of "method" and "means." Accordingly, the proposals do not concern the methods
and means of performing work, within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1) of the
Statute, under Prong 1 of the Authority's test.(3)

2. The proposals affect management's right to determine the
organization of the agency under section 7106(a).

Consistent with VAMC, Lexington, it is necessary to determine
whether the proposals affect the Agency's right to determine its organization
under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. This right encompasses an agency's
determination as to how it will structure itself to accomplish its mission and
functions, including such matters as the geographic locations in which an
agency will provide services or otherwise conduct its operations. IRS,
35 FLRA at 409.

The proposals would prevent the Agency from implementing its decision
to change the geographic locations of its two offices. As such, the proposals
affect the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine its
organization. As there is no assertion that the proposals are bargainable under
section 7106(b)(2) or (3), they are outside the duty to bargain.

2. If a proposal concerns a matter
found bargainable at the election of the Agency under section 7106(b)(1), then
the Authority will dismiss the petition for review as to that proposal.
VAMC, Lexington, 51 FLRA at 394. This is consistent with 5 C.F.R. §
2424.10(b), which states:

If the Authority finds that the duty to bargain extends to the matter
proposed to be bargained only at the election of the agency, the Authority
shall so state and issue an order dismissing the petition for review of the
negotiability issue.

3. In view of our conclusion, we do not
need to determine whether the proposal would satisfy Prong 2 of the Authority's
test. We note that, in this case, the assertion that the proposal constitutes a
method or means of performing work under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute
has been raised by a union, not an agency. We also note that the decisions
establishing the Authority's test all involved agency assertions that proposals
conflicted with the right to make determinations regarding methods and means.
However, as neither party has questioned the contin